法律英语case1

Dobsonv.MasoniteCorpUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsFifthCircuit359F.2d921(1966)StatementoffactsTrialCourt–Plaintiff:Dobson–Defendant:MasoniteCorp.AppellateCourtAppellant:MasoniteCorpAppellee:DobsonStatementoffactsa.Identifylegallyrelevantfacts–Inmarch1963,DobsonorallyagreedtoundertakecuttingoperationonMasonite’slands.–Sotheyreachedaverbalagreementlikethis:Contract(1)Cutalloaktimber(2)Havecompletecontrolovertheentirecuttingoperations(3)Sellthecuttimberashecould(4)PayM$12initially,andsubsequently$10perthousandlogfeetofoaksoldSoMasoniteunilaterallyterminatedtheagreementandorderedDobsontodiscontinuehisoperations.However,thepriceoftheoaksurged,Dobsonwasabletorealizeprofitfromhisoperations.DobsoncontinuedclearingoperationsfromMarch1963toDecember1963,duringwhichtimecleared4,000acresofland,andrealizedanetprofit,afterallexpenses,includingpaymentstoMasonite,ofDobsoninterpretedthecontractasoneforservice;hearguedthattheagreementwasforclearingthelandofunwantedoaktrees.Mosonitedeniedliability,interpretingthecontractasoneforthesalesofstandingtimber,andinvokingtheMississippistatuteoffraudstobarDobson’sclaim.b.IdentifyprocedurallysignificantfactsLegalissuesWhichtypeofthecontract?serviceorsalesDobsonMasoniteInterpretationQuestionoflaworQuestionoffactHolding—DistrictCourtJuryinfavorofPassessdamagesat26,500DistrictcourtquestionoflawcontractforsalesthecontractisunenforceableHolding—AppealsFifthCircuitCourtQuestionoffactreversedandremandedwithdirectionsRuleoflawTheMississippiStatuteofFraudsFed.R.Civ.P.50(b)ReasoningofthecourtDistrictCourtThelegalanalysisandlegaleffectofthatdonewasinquestion.MatteroflawPresentedtothejudgeDobsonbyvirtueofthecontractacquiredaninterestinstandingtimber.SalecontractMississippiStatuteofFraudsFifthCircuitCourtInterpretationisalwaysaquestionoffact.“legaleffect”isjusttheresultofapplyingrulesoflawtothefacts.QuestionoffactDeterminedbythejuryUnlesstherewasnoevidence,theverdictmuststand.AdditionnalcommentsMypuzzle:Whatisthe“legaleffect”??Appellatecourt:legaleffectistheresultofapplyingrulesoflawtothefacts.Districtcourt:Legaleffectisthelegalinfluenceofajuridicalact.Iprefertheappellatecourt’sopinion.Becauseifwechoosethedistrictcourt’sideathatanythingmayleadtolegalinfluenceisamatteroflaw,wewouldgetanamazinginterence-thereisnoneedforthejury.Forexample:incriminalcases,thejurydeterminewhetherthedefendantisguilty.Thisdeterminationitselfobviouslyleadtolegalinfluence.Inordertoprotectthejurysystem,weshouldsupporttheholdingoftheappellatecourt.(IfitisinChina,thingsmaybetotallydifferent.InChinseslegalconcept,legalinfluenceisususllyregardasapartoflegaleffect,maybethatisoneofthereasonsforwhythejurysystemdon’texistinChina.)